On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM, David Nolen <dnolen.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > It's a convention from The Reasoned Schemer. It's just an easy way to >> > differentiate goals from regular functions.
What's the rationale in TRS for that? (and "conde") Like Phil (and no doubt others) it seems an odd convention, without explanation. >> Wouldn't it be more idiomatic Clojure to use namespaces? That was my first reaction too. > core.logic embraces freely mixing functional and logic programming. In other words, you want access to both unqualified cons and conso, rest and resto etc in the same code? Yet core.logic overrides == and so you either have to namespace that or exclude it (the examples seem to do the latter) which seems to run counter to that. It's not a big deal. It's just a bit jarring when you first start using core.logic (which is a very cool library BTW). -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://corfield.org/ World Singles, LLC. -- http://worldsingles.com/ "Perfection is the enemy of the good." -- Gustave Flaubert, French realist novelist (1821-1880) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
